Not sure why some are down on DA about this article. It's not a ranking of how teams will do next season. It's a ranking of off season moves and the grade he feels they merit isn't it? I'd say for the most part it's spot on.

STARTING UNIT
Gray --> Valanciunas (learning curve for sure, but should become the better player at both ends very quickly)
Bargnani (a healthy season with improved lineup around him, both with more scorers and better point-of-attack defense, should see his numbers improve)
Johnson --> Fields (similar all-around game at both ends, but much more controlled/consistent)
DeRozan (should/better continue improving; end of season play and Olympic select team experience should help)
Calderon --> Lowry (significant upgrade defensively, much better penetrator)

2ND UNIT
Amir/Magloire --> Amir/Gray (depending on matchups, depth at C/PF is even better this season, meaning there should be lots of competition for playing time)
Davis (first full offseason, likely with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove, I am quietly/hopefully optimistic)
Kleiza (appears to be fully healthy for first time in two years)
Forbes --> Ross (will have a learning curve, but will have much more leeway to learn and be streaky shooter on 2nd unit)
Bayless --> Calderon (due to poor defense, he goes from being a below-average starter to a seriously above-average backup)

BENCH
Alabi --> Acy
Anderson
Uzoh --> Lucas III

The Raps are solid, young team, full of players with loads of potential. When you consider the fact that Raptors made all these changes and still enter the season only about $3.5M over the salary cap and have Calderon's $10.6M contract expiring (Gray (TBC), Lucas III (Team Option), Anderson and DeRozan (QO) are also expiring) to give them even more roster/cap flexibility next offseason, so I can't understand how they could possibly be ranked so low. Even the slightly overpaid Fields contract should be more than offset by the Lowry contract, which is widely regarded as one of the best value contracts in the league.

I still think they need a true impact #1 option type wing (likely SF), but they have Calderon (expiring contract), PF depth (likely Davis, possibly Amir) and SG depth (possibly DeRozan, if Fields returns to rookie year form and Ross proves worth of being a lottery pick) to offer in trade. As an FYI, Calderon ($10.6M) + Davis ($2.2M) + DeRozan ($3.3M) would allow the Raps to bring back more than $20.2M in salary (as a maximum), if they so desired.

Voice of reason:

Nilanka wrote:

Interesting point about DeRozan being expendable if Fields returns to form. I suppose Ross's showing this year could also influence how Colangelo views DeRozan going forward.

Ideally, a team has a 4 wing rotation (at most). Assuming Kleiza is kept as a backup SF who is also capable of playing PF in a small 2nd unit, then one of DeRozan/Fields/Ross would automatically become expendable, if a star veteran SF (ie: Gay, Iggy, whoever else) is added.

Fields is probably the best of those 3 defensively and is also likely slightly overpaid.

Ross is an unproven, potential sharpshooter type rookie, who could develop into a great 6th man scorer, similar to Barbosa/Terry/Mayo.

That leaves DeRozan, who is a solid player, who probably hasn't lived up to expectations that most Raptors fans have had for him (rightfully or wrongfully placed on him after being named a starter from day 1). Even so, DeRozan's going to expect a big payday this offseason, as an RFA.

If Fields returns to form, he's the superior defensive SG. If Ross develops up to potential, he'll become the superior outside shooting SG. With Kleiza and the yet-to-be-named starting SF on board, then DeRozan seems to make the most sense to use as trade bait, especially since he'll be seeking a raise and is probably the most in-demand.

If BC were to make Calderon & DeRozan & Davis (total $16.1M in salary going out) available as a package, I think he could definitely find some interested parties. Even if the roster moves are in fact done for the offseason, I think BC will be quite busy between now and the trade deadline.

Voice of reason:

They overpaid Landry in a gamble to win Nash. That gamble blew up in their face. While they stalled through that process the business kept moving. They failed at their biggest FA goal and lost time. If Colangelo would have gained much praise for landing Nash then he equally deserves criticism for failing to land Nash in a way which led to the Raptors potentially losing opportunities. It's only fair. Should they be 18 or should they be higher? You can argue they should but when you say way higher what are you thinking about? 15th? 10th? 5th? I'm not sure they were better than 15th. That's middle of the road. JV was last year. You can't add JV in two year in a row.

What did other teams do? You all are only talking about what the Raptors did. If they're way higher then who are they knocking down a notch and why?

TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote:

I actually thought that the Raps should have been ranked way higher than 18.

The moves that theyve made so far were to address the needs, and i think theyve done at least 80% of what needed to be done. The 20% missing is the scoring wing and trading Calderon.

They needed a scoring, defensive PG, they got Lowry, a solid backup in LucasIII, a scorer in Ross, and a 5 in JV to put Bargnani in the 4.

They overpaid Landry in a gamble to win Nash. That gamble blew up in their face. While they stalled through that process the business kept moving. They failed at their biggest FA goal and lost time. If Colangelo would have gained much praise for landing Nash then he equally deserves criticism for failing to land Nash in a way which led to the Raptors potentially losing opportunities. It's only fair. Should they be 18 or should they be higher? You can argue they should but when you say way higher what are you thinking about? 15th? 10th? 5th? I'm not sure they were better than 15th. That's middle of the road. JV was last year. You can't add JV in two year in a row.

What did other teams do? You all are only talking about what the Raptors did. If they're way higher then who are they knocking down a notch and why?

If JV was excluded, id say the Raptors would be a notch or two lower, but since DA did include JV, yes, i would say, way higher than 18.

I would put the Raps over Phoenix, since Phoenix actually lost a franchise player and replaced him with a backup. They did pick up Wesley, Scola and Beasley, but IMO, their defense got much worse.
Id also put the Raps over the Bobcats since the team needs scoring, and they did pick up Gordon, but sessions, haywood and MKG are not scorers.
Id put the Raps over the Nuggets, becuase 4 yrs for 44 mil for McGee is a bit high and 1 late round and 2 2nd round rookies, on paper, probably wont be rotation players.
I think Allen going to the Heat is not that big of a bump for them, they need a true Center to bang with the other big men and they didnt address that.
The Rockets, more volume than quality.

They overpaid Landry in a gamble to win Nash. That gamble blew up in their face. While they stalled through that process the business kept moving. They failed at their biggest FA goal and lost time. If Colangelo would have gained much praise for landing Nash then he equally deserves criticism for failing to land Nash in a way which led to the Raptors potentially losing opportunities. It's only fair. Should they be 18 or should they be higher? You can argue they should but when you say way higher what are you thinking about? 15th? 10th? 5th? I'm not sure they were better than 15th. That's middle of the road. JV was last year. You can't add JV in two year in a row.

What did other teams do? You all are only talking about what the Raptors did. If they're way higher then who are they knocking down a notch and why?

Gotta disagree that we overpaid Landry in a gamble for Nash. We overpaid Landry so that NY wouldn't match, because we wanted him regardless of Nash. If we had simply wanted to take Landry out of S&T deals, we could have offered him the deal without a poison pill, and a smaller deal. If we had offered him 3 years $15 million ($5 mill per year), he most certainly would have signed it, taking him out of any possible S&T's, but then NY would have matched it. The reason we didn't offer a 3 year $15 million deal is because we did not want NY to match, which means it had nothing to do with Nash.

I think the Raps deserve to be at least 15. The reason why is they got better.

Forget contracts, just look at talent. They are younger, deeper, with more (of the very overused word) potential, and, therefore,better.

The reason behind 15 is very primitive and easily debunked but I'll go for it anyways. Not every team will be better. If one team is better, presumably another team is going to get worse because of it. Since better/worse is based on wins/losses, everyone can't get better, can they? Someone still has to lose the game and there are only 1230 games played in an 82 game, 30 team season (someone can double check my math!). A win won by a team comes at the expense of a win from another team somewhere.

So if half the teams are better (and I think the Raps are one of them) then half the teams must have become worse..... so 15 for Toronto!

**The other thing to keep in mind is few other teams in the league have a rabid fan base like Toronto. Putting them in a few notches lower is a great way to generate attention to an article.**

Gotta disagree that we overpaid Landry in a gamble for Nash. We overpaid Landry so that NY wouldn't match, because we wanted him regardless of Nash. If we had simply wanted to take Landry out of S&T deals, we could have offered him the deal without a poison pill, and a smaller deal. If we had offered him 3 years $15 million ($5 mill per year), he most certainly would have signed it, taking him out of any possible S&T's, but then NY would have matched it. The reason we didn't offer a 3 year $15 million deal is because we did not want NY to match, which means it had nothing to do with Nash.

I didn't initially agree with your side of the argument, but once I thought about it and realized that Fields would be out of any S&T scenario regardless or NY matching or not, then it made sense that the deal was also made to actually sign him. However, it is possible that had BC known that Nash was going to sign elsewhere, he may have chosen to use his approx. $12M cap space another way, as opposed to S&T for Nash and overpaid signing for Fields. That is way too far into unknown 'what if' territory though, to have any real conversation about it. I think it's safe to say that Fields is/was both a BC & DC type of player, regardless which PG the Raps had/have running the team - he is young, contributes at both ends, doesn't require the ball to be in his hands to be effective, can buy into the defense-first mentality and was a decent outside shooter prior to the 'Melo-era in NY.

The Raps had $12M in cap space heading into the offseason. Being able to add Lowry ($5.75M) and Fields ($6.3M) is a pretty effective use of that cap space, given what was on the market and what prices were handed out to some other free agents this offseason. Yes, Fields is probably $1-1.5M overpaid, but if he returns to the form from his rookie season and improves from there, over the course of his years in Toronto, then I think he'll have justified the salary. It's not as though the Raps are in a bad spot cap-wise, so they are one team who could afford to slightly overpay to lure a RFA anyway. As long as his signing didn't/doesn't prevent a better acquisition from being made (signing or trade), who really cares how much he's getting paid?

Gotta disagree that we overpaid Landry in a gamble for Nash. We overpaid Landry so that NY wouldn't match, because we wanted him regardless of Nash. If we had simply wanted to take Landry out of S&T deals, we could have offered him the deal without a poison pill, and a smaller deal. If we had offered him 3 years $15 million ($5 mill per year), he most certainly would have signed it, taking him out of any possible S&T's, but then NY would have matched it. The reason we didn't offer a 3 year $15 million deal is because we did not want NY to match, which means it had nothing to do with Nash.

I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.

I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.

Why would he make the inflated offer unless he didn't want NY to match? He could have made a lower offer ($15M-ish) and Fields still would have signed it, accomplishing the block Nash S&T goal while also not overpaying.

I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.

I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.

i am with apollo here. the contract had to be signed as fast as possible to make the block. people say he could have also made the block at 3 for 15 with 5 per year, there is no guarentee his agent wouldn't have kept shopping for a better deal. 5 a year seems kinda fair for fields but he wouldn't have gotten a deal finacially comparable to what he got. stated in another thread that fields might have been an off season target but his contract his entirely nash blocking fodder.

landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.

landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.

I agree, but Batum would've had to been overpaid dearly beyond Fields, Beasley has never lived up to his potential plus the off-court troubles, and Grant Hill wouldn't sign here, he's looking for a contender where he will fit in now, not for the future.

We can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent. We offered everything we could to Nash, yet he went to a team he despises and has had past battles with.

We can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent.

agreed, but i threw that out there to answer someone else of other options that were available at the 3. we didn't even make a move on any of those 3 players.

to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.

he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.

in short
-fields=good
-wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
-slightly overpaid
-is, of course, being supported by his team

agreed, but i threw that out there to answer someone else of other options that were available at the 3. we didn't even make a move on any of those 3 players.

to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.

he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.

in short
-fields=good
-wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
-slightly overpaid
-is, of course, being supported by his team

I agree with everything you said, but I think if these free agents were in the plans of the Raptors, the team would've went after them.

Fields was not originally a big target at the time, being it was used to block out the S&T to Phoenix, but when we offered the contract, I was extremely happy anyways.

In my opinion:
Fields = Good with solid ceiling
= One of the only options available that would actually sign with the team
= Slightly overpaid, but restricted free agent signings usually call for it
= Any case, fits the team system of defense, toughness, shooting, and IQ.